Search for: All records

Abstract In this paper, we reflect on our collective experiences engaging with Anishinaabe Tribal Nations in the Great Lakes region to support Tribal sovereignty in decision‐making for food, energy, and water (FEW) systems. In these diverse experiences, we find common lessons. The first set of lessons contributes new empirical knowledge regarding the challenges and opportunities that rural Great Lakes Tribal Nations navigate for enacting sovereignty in decision‐making. Our experiences illustrate that while Tribal Nations benefit from a broad and deep commitment to sovereignty and many cultural strengths, they are often challenged by shortages in administrative capacity; technical support; and embeddedness in economic, socio‐cultural, and institutional dynamics that must be further negotiated for Tribes to enact the sovereignty to which they are inherently (and legally) entitled. Productive partnerships struggle when university partners fail to acknowledge these realities. The second set of lessons addresses the potential for, and challenges of, effective engagement processes. We find that engagement with university professionals is often mismatched with the priorities and needs of Tribal Nations. Effective engagement with Tribal Nations requires practical knowledge, applied assistance, and grounded, genuine relationships; these requirements often run counter to the institutional structures and priorities imposed by universities, federal funding agencies, and student recruitment. These findings, associated with both empirical knowledge and lessons on process, highlight shared insights on formidable barriers to effective engagement. Based on our firsthand experience working with rural Tribal Nations on FEW decision‐making, we share these reflections with particular focus on lessons learned for professionals who engage, or hope to engage, with Tribal Nations in rural settings and offer opportunities to transform engagement processes to better support the immediate, practical needs of rural Tribal Nations. 

In recent years, Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) has gained prominence in ecosystem science and governance, enhancing understanding of landscape conditions, systems dynamics, and ethical restoration practices. However, Indigenous community engagement in science and practice remains limited. In this paper, we investigate TEK’s contribution to forest ecosystem research for resilient livelihoods, methods for bridging TEK with Western science, and share insights from Ojibwa perspectives on ecological restoration and wellbeing. A systematic review of TEK literature from 2001 to 2022 was conducted using Web of Science, with bibliometric analysis and narrative review using VOSviewer and Biblioshiny. Our findings suggest that while TEK is prevalent in social-ecological resilience and climate change mitigation research, forest ecosystem restoration receives less attention. Most literature considers Indigenous peoples as research participants rather than collaborative research partners. Differences in ontologies and sociological barriers between Indigenous peoples and government agencies may hinder TEK’s inclusion in restoration practices. Reflecting on the wild rice restoration efforts of Ojibwa in the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, we discuss timescale dimensions of research partnerships and restoration projects with Indigenous communities. Guided by Indigenous knowledge systems, we conclude that restoration activities have the potential to strengthen humanecosystem livelihoods in our shared landscapes and futures. 

Contemporary Earth crises are challenging ideologies that enthrone humans at the center of existence and separate from nature, problematizing common notions of sustainability. Further inquiry, particularly sustainability of what and for whom, requires decentering the human experience toward other-than-human beings (e.g., plants and animals). In this article, we, as the Kinship Circle book club, share reflections from our monthly dialogue with the five-part book series Kinship: Belonging in a World of Relations, built on a foundation of partnership experiences with the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Lake Superior Band of Ojibwa. Together, we discuss three major departures from our previous modes of thought at the individual, community, and global levels. First, as students, mentors, and relatives to many, we aim for (research) practices that affirm relationships to place, an approach we understand as remembering what it means to be human. Second, to rebuild shared responsibilities across communities of many kinds, we move beyond an anthropomorphization debate toward “animism," recognizing the sentience and autonomy of other-than-human beings on Earth. Third, in support of a transformative and collective human ethic, we hope to contribute to restoring relationships with the many that gift us life, using connections between migration, justice, and introduced species. Finally, we present a practical Kinship Circle framework for applying these concepts in educational settings. Our conclusion provides central kinship lessons for decentering humans in the sustainability sciences, rooted in humility, responsibility, and an Earth-centered ethics. 

The Ojibwe Gichigami (Lake Superior) bioregion is the ancestral and contemporary homeland of the Anishinaabe Ojibwa. Harvesting and consuming fish has sustained people for millennia, but today, toxic risks due to fish contamination contribute to many burdens for both human and more-than-human worlds. For the Ojibwa, nibi gaye nii’kinaaganaa (“water and all my relations”) are the lived experiences of fish-reliant communities and emphasize sustaining good relations with water and relatives. Toxicity disrupts traditional harvest lifeways, violates treaty rights, and problematizes Ojibwa water relations. In this article, I describe diverging values attributed to water and conflicting norms of water quality relations between Ojibwa people and scientific practices of toxicology. Drawn from a study of institutional water decision making, I examine practices associated with water, fish, and risk and how these practices clarify ethics in water policy. The study of toxic substances, albeit invisible in water policy and fish advisories, raises broader issues of Indigenous water justice, particularly for sensitive populations (e.g., developing children, women of childbearing age, and fish-reliant communities). In proposing a broader justice framework for reimagining water lives and livelihoods, I argue for foregrounding Indigenous water justice ethics based on long-term wellbeing, a time period inclusive of seven generations. 

Abstract Scientific study of issues at the nexus of food–energy–water systems (FEWS) requires grappling with multifaceted, “wicked” problems. FEWS involve interactions occurring directly and indirectly across complex and overlapping spatial and temporal scales; they are also imbued with diverse and sometimes conflicting meanings for the human and more-than-human beings that live within them. In this paper, we consider the role of language in the dynamics of boundary work, recognizing that the language often used in stakeholder and community engagement intended to address FEWS science and decision-making constructs boundaries and limits diverse and inclusive participation. In contrast, some language systems provide opportunities to build bridges rather than boundaries in engagement. Based on our experiences with engagement in FEWS science and with Indigenous knowledges and languages, we consider examples of the role of language in reflecting worldviews, values, practices, and interactions in FEWS science and engagement. We particularly focus on Indigenous knowledges from Anishinaabe and the language of Anishinaabemowin, contrasting languages of boundaries and bridges through concrete examples. These examples are used to unpack the argument of this work, which is that scientific research aiming to engage FEWS issues in working landscapes requires grappling with embedded, practical understandings. This perspective demonstrates the importance of grappling with the role of language in creating boundaries or bridges, while recognizing that training in engagement may not critically reflect on the role of language in limiting diversity and inclusivity in engagement efforts. Leaving this reflexive consideration of language unexamined may unknowingly perpetuate boundaries rather than building bridges, thus limiting the effectiveness of engagement that is intended to address wicked problems in working landscapes.